Thursday, September 23, 2021

An "Academic" Hit Job on the Kensington Rune Stone

I resisted giving attention to this sad excuse for an "academic" paper, but because it made its way tangentially onto a cable television show causing confusion on the part of the public, I decided it needed to be addressed.  Let's be clear from the start, the motivation behind this paper is the fanatical "belief" of the author the Kensington Rune Stone (KRS) is a modern hoax.  The other motivation is what appears to be a deep-seated hatred of me personally, and professionally.  After a short stint working in my laboratory, this individual was relieved of his employment almost twenty years ago.  This individual also holds the distinction of being the only person I ever had to personally walk out the door of our business.

Now that I've provided a little context, let's look at just a few of the many problems with this paper.  The author purports to have earned a PhD in geology, but with so many factual errors, leaps in logic and flippant opinionated statements with no logical factual support it suggests it has been so long since this person did any actual geology, he must have forgotten basic geological principles.  There are so many problems with this paper it's hard to know where to begin, but one sentence in the abstract might be a good place to start.  The sixth sentence on line seven is refers to the geological makeup of the KRS, "This coating is consistent with stucco applied to the surface of the sandstone."

1. The rock is not sandstone, it is a Paleoproterozoic aged (1.85-2.1 billion years old) metagraywacke that originated in the Thomson Formation located in Carlton, Minnesota.  This rock name probably won't make sense to most people reading this, but in the world of geology it is a glaring sign the author doesn't understand the mineralogy and metamorphic textures so prevalent in this rock.  The difference is significant and a PhD geologist should know better.    



The face side of the Kensington Rune Stone contains the first nine lines of runic text and the naturally formed yellowish-white, triangular shaped hydrothermal calcite covers the surface of the lower left third of the stone (top).  Below is the intentionally split side containing the last three lines of text including the Pentadic date of 1362.  The "H" at the bottom end of the stone was carved by Hjalmar Holand in 1908, when he had possession of the stone.

2. Calling the hydrothermal calcite on the face side of the stone "stucco", and "applied" to the surface is mystifying.  The yellowish-white colored triangular shaped area in the lower-right third of the face side of the artifact is hydrothermal calcite deposited along a joint fracture when the stone was still part of the bedrock millions of years ago.  Arguing the obviously naturally formed calcite is somehow modern manmade plaster is absurd with no factual basis whatsoever.

Having operated a materials forensic laboratory examining primarily concrete, mortar, grout, stucco, and rock for the past 31 years, this claim is ludicrous.  Stucco contains  Portland cement and sand which is easily identifiable with the naked eye.  The author's inability to distinguish between the calcite deposited within a joint fracture millions of years ago, verses modern stucco reeks of an agenda verses incompetence.  Further, the word "applied" implies someone intentionally put a naturally formed mineralogical feature on the rock which is impossible.  Throughout the paper the author makes unsupported assertions as statements of fact when they simply are not.  It's like the "Big Lie" of the KRS skeptic arguments where the author repeats falsehoods so often he begins to believe them.  

3. On page 7 the assertion is made the stone was used as "stepping stone" by Olof Ohman, (spelled incorrectly in the paper as Olaf) when there are two direct sources that say the opposite.  The first was Olof Ohman. In 1909, Newton Winchell interviewed Olof Ohman, and wrote in his field notebook Ohman said the stone was stored "inside the shed" until the stone transferred custody to Hjalmar Holand in August of 1907 (Nielsen/Wolter, Page 237).  The second his son, Edward Ohman, who stated emphatically the stone "...was never used as a doorstep" in an interview with the Minnesota Historical Society in 1949.  Therefore, all subsequent assertions and conclusions made based on this erroneous assumption are invalid.  

This newspaper photograph shows Edward Ohman (left) being interviewed by Bergmann Richards about the discovery of the Kensington Rune Stone in 1898.  During the December 29, 1949 interview when asked about the stone being used as doorstep in front of the granary Ohman replied, "The story goes it was used as a doorstep, but it never was."  The author chose to ignore this fact to further erroneous arguments based on this decades old falsehood.

I should also point out one of the author's citations about what Winchell supposedly said about the stone serving as a "stepping stone", which Winchell never said, he attributes to the year 1915.  This is problematic as Professor Winchell died in 1914.  

The grave stone of Professor Newton H. Winchell in Lakewood Cemetery, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Winchell studied the Kensington Rune Stone from 1909-1910 and concluded, "...the said stone is not a modern forgery and must be accepted as a genuine record of exploration, in Minnesota, at the date stated in the inscription."

4. On page 9, the author seems to think it is appropriate for Professor Emeritus, Mike Michlovic, a harshly biased archaeologist who believes the KRS is a hoax, with no training in proper scientific method, mineralogy or petrology, to provide critical review of the geological weathering work performed by myself, a licensed professional geologist, and Professor Newton H. Winchell, the first State Geologist of Minnesota (1875-1900).  That's like asking a massage therapist to review the scientific work of a brain surgeon.   

5. The author also makes the claim on page 9, retired Professor of Geology, Paul Wieblen, "...have made detailed studies on it."  This is grossly misleading.  I was with Dr. Wieblen when he performed a single electron microprobe traverse on the core sample from the Rune Stone at the University of Minnesota to document its elemental composition.  That was all he did.  Dr. Wieblen never examined a thin section as claimed in the paper.  If the author is wrong about this simple fact, what other facts did he get wrong? 

6. The author's claim he examined a thin section of the KRS is simply a lie, and his write-up about its composition is pure fiction.  I maintained tight control of all samples taken from the KRS and only allowed senior petrographer, Gerard Moulzolf, and retired Professor Emeritus of Geology, Richard Ojakangas, to examine thin sections.  Frankly, I didn't trust the former employee to be competent or objective, and this paper has proven it was the right decision. 

7. The author's claim in the Introduction the inscription is not consistent with the 14th Century runic tradition is simply wrong.  All the words, runes, dialect, grammar, and dating within the inscription have been found to be consistent with the 14th Century.  Further, the author's bias is obvious in citing only critics whose outdated complaints have since all been proven wrong.    

8. Figure 4 on page 12 showing photographs portraying the similar appearance of modern stucco and the hydrothermal calcite on the face side of the KRS as some kind of proof they are the same is ridiculous.  It's like saying an image of Jesus on burnt toast proves he was the son of God.  The subsequent in-depth argument the hydrothermal calcite could somehow be modern stucco made with Portland cement is too silly to waste the reader's time on refuting.  

At this point, there are too many more problems with the rest of the paper to bother with.  It's simply dead on arrival.  

So why does it matter that the author decided to seemingly intentionally castrate himself professionally with a work of such poor quality?  The reason is word of this person's criticism of my work on the Kensington Rune Stone made its way into the season-ending cliffhanger episode of a cable television show on the Science Channel, in January of this year.  I appeared in 10 of 12 episodes of "Secrets of the Viking Stone" with hosts Elroy Balgaard, and Peter Stormare, who has appeared in many movies including the movie "Fargo." 

In the final minutes of the final episode of the cable television series, "Secrets of the Viking Stone", Peter Stormare (pictured here) and Elroy Balgaard, discuss the erroneous claim the Kensington Rune Stone was a hoax.  This cliffhanger finale intentionally left the audience with a mixed message about the authenticity of the stone.  It is hoped they will get an opportunity to set the record straight in the near future.

Throughout the series, Peter and Elroy would turn to me for historical facts and scientific information about the Kensington Rune Stone that proved it is a 14th Century artifact, carved and buried as a land claim, by the ideological descendants of the medieval Knights Templar order.  One of the guest experts on the show, and outspoken critic of the stone, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology, Mike Michlovic, recommended the producers of the show contact the author of the paper who did not respond to their inquiry for more information.  This was no surprise, since writing a hit piece for an archaeological journal no one will ever read, is different than defending your shoddy work on television for all the world to see.

The mistake by the producers of the show, was taking the risk of using the fraudulent claims as a cliffhanger, in the hope of getting another season of their show.  Their plan was to rectify the situation in future episodes, but unfortunately, the plan backfired.  In large part because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the show was not green-lit for a third season.  This means the last thing the audience heard was my geological work called into question without an opportunity to refute it.  So it goes in the TV business.      

Let me be clear, I welcome legitimate criticism of my scientific work and always have.  That is why my geological work on the Kensington Stone was peer reviewed by eight academic and professional peers prior to publishing my multiple reports, papers and books.  The professional and academic review process is vital to ensure competence in the work performed, and confidence in the conclusions reached.  More especially in a case like this that has large historical implications. 

This geological "hoax" report coming from a PhD would be laughable if it weren't so sad.  One can only conclude someone supposedly this "smart" was haunted by the dogmatic pursuit of a personal agenda.  What else would motivate someone to publish such poor work that can only be described as an academic "hit job" on the Kensington Rune Stone.  Perhaps the best way to understand how ridiculous this paper is, is the fact it was published in an archaeological journal, not a geological journal.  Archaeology is an opinion-driven discipline that loves to brag about its peer review process.  Where was the proper peer review of this abomination?  This guy wouldn't dare submit this nonsense to an accredited geological journal.  Personally, I think the University of Minnesota should revoke the PhD they granted to this guy for blatant incompetence and breach of professional ethics.      

Here is a link to the paper: 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.academia.edu/45218145/The_Kensington_Runestone_Geological_Evidence_of_a_Hoax?fbclid=IwAR3GJJQffeFMqK4YqUvbnkf-WUGcCt9hTbafNiXzqcip6ExE6t7bPkFQ4jY&h=AT0KFGL32t9EuRBqEUlROiMC9-arblYwU1W8Ua9n7XTBTDEEM87S9o6TS9ZFfpSM2IgQw21jcpTdMiLbnhEX5nDKYOPvO6rY5MLQvIHzsiZGAj-2-aC01-Vkg93hL3i0Bsyginqn1w&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT3AOZN6HoPz1tle_XckRCHX0ywvR7d15rH0q921wxif-s5yfSzHhxPs5qkYLnGY4OVDbPPAVlBAMjZIfqwaDkghoSkYeWYl5bjzuQEq3pswyJDNlhISg-lxldTF4XztaZg4xEawyql7szRdBTvECSgCnUcpCaENeJiZPMvqML7DDwmvZ_mAF7E9V4X8o4ToljGlXcCqMgWo_GChMFGF

45 comments:

  1. Scottt,

    WOW!?! That paper is the epitome of disgruntled former employee. The best thing to happen to History is for use too follow the EVIDENCE!! Not the just the stories passed along by "acceptable" sources ... I have been a follower of you since your show and always support locals! Thank you for continuing to speak truth and not sit back on things like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mnmutt,

      Indeed, but why would somebody be so vindictive as to throw their credibility in the trash trying to attack another; it's pathetic and sad. This has been one of the unfortunate legacies of the Rune Stone. The investigations of the past right up to today have been fraught with incompetence, personal bias, lack of information, and academic arrogance that has repeatedly led to the wrong conclusion. It's time for a fresh start where arguments are based on science, facts and truth. That is what myself and Newton Winchell did nearly a century before me.

      That is how we were able to get to the truth.

      Delete
  2. I read his paper. I probably was the only person that ever did. He has too much free time and needs to get a life. Scott. I think he has something in for you! Something I have learned over the years of research I have done on the KRS. Academia don’t like outsiders ideas or research and dismiss it. Scott keep-up the good work. Wayne Gorian, Minneapolis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Wayne,

      I believe this person is now in their 70s and likely does have a lot of free time to sit and fret. This person absolutely has it out for me as evidenced a few years ago when he filed ethics complaints in 38 states where we filmed episodes of America Unearthed saying I was practicing geology without a license. The complaints were all ignored, but who does that?

      Only a person who is driven by a deep-seated personal hatred for another they feel somehow did them wrong. It is truly sad.

      Delete
  3. There are two things that I can think of as motivators for this behavior: money and jealousy. Money doesn't appear to be a factor here. He is looking to knock you down a few pegs. It's an unfortunate situation, but your reaction will likely drive his behavior.
    You have many fans who are looking for your continued work! Stay safe and healthy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown,

      I can assure there is no outlet for money in the case, so that leaves only a personal vendetta which there is ample evidence for.

      I have known about this report for quite a while now, but chose not to say anything because it was so bad I knew no one who mattered would take it seriously. However, when mention of it appeared in the cliffhanger for the final episode of the cable television show, I felt compelled to respond and put the situation into proper perspective.

      A friend recently told me that if you're not pissing somebody off with you're research, you're not doing anything meaningful. Based on the intense pushback I've received over the past 20-plus years, I must be doing something right!

      Delete
  4. Thanks Scott for clearing up this fiction idea

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curt,

      Usually, I ignore the gnats that buzz around looking for attention. However, this one needed to be swatted and I have to admit it felt good doing it.

      Thanks for commenting.

      Delete
  5. I would like to meet you and talk about The tresor of la buse , i m living in reunion Iland and been cherching for ten years with a master franc maçon and we had found true things. sorry for my english

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown,

      Why don't we start with email: swolter@amengtest.com

      Delete
  6. Thank you for addressing this issue. I watch you because you deal in scientific facts. I trust that. Jane G. Getman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane,

      It had to be addressed and dealt with in a factual way without getting personal about it. Thanks for taking the time to send a note.

      Delete
  7. I couldn’t finish reading his “paper”. More biased than the MSM.

    I am new to your research and it has really opened my mind and inspired me to dig into historical events. I hope you continue your research in TV through America Unearthed. It’s a great show and there is so much garbage in TV today! Appreciator your findings and theories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charles,

      The paper is nauseatingly bad, I'm surprised you could stomach it. We have a lot of new research to share in the coming days. The best is yet to come!

      Delete
  8. "1. The rock is not sandstone, it is a Paleoproterozoic aged (1.85-2.1 billion years old) metagraywacke that originated in the Thomson Formation located in Carlton, Minnesota."

    Actually Greywacke is a type of sandstone and the terminology following that statement has little relevance to the issue, beyond trying to sound authoritative. It’s a bit like tossing out the chemical composition of a tire in a discussion on transmissions. This blog reads more like something a politician, lawyer or salesman would write - not a geologist. “Academic Hit Job”, “Sad Excuse”.... this is the kind of emotionally charged language people use when selling. You don’t find it in scientific articles.

    I am not an archaeologist, so I don’t have an opinion of the authenticity of the stone. However, from what I have read so far, most archeologists have concluded that the KRS is a fake. As a geologist, when it comes to Archeology, I go with the judgement of archaeologists. I can tell you what an artefact is made out of - but not much else. Archaeology is like so many things: more complex than the average person realizes. We have employed them to evaluate the cultural resources on a site when doing an environmental impact study and the associated conversations has given me a real appreciation for how complicated and nuanced their work generally is.

    Science is not a topic, but a methodology. The discipline of the scientific method allow for repeatability. If results cant be duplicated using the same method, then results are called into question and more experimentation takes place until a theory that holds up can be found. I think of the scientific method to be a lot like the Second Amendment: it’s a great equalizer. It reveals the same truth to everyone. However, for it to work, you have to be competent and truly know the subject - not just have a hand full of sound bytes or isolated facts.

    One of the challenges in communicating science to the public is that there is a powerful tendency to mistake a smooth argument for valid one. For example, a sales person can explain away a noise in a transmission of a used car with something that sounds very probable and logical to the non-mechanic....because the flaws are not apparent to he non-mechanic. Yet to the mechanic who understands the details and knows how a transmission actually works, the sale persons explanation is obviously BS. When I was a kid, the guy at the gas station used to convince my father to use antifreeze good to -40F even though we lived in an area where it almost never approached 0F... the gas station guy said it was needed was due to the “wind chill effect”. Sounds reasonable, but its total nonsense.

    Is the KRS a fake? Who knows? Actually no one does. Fakes often have long life spans before they are revealed for what they are. Just recently the “Vinland Map” was found to be printed with ink that apparently wasnt available until the 1920s. There a number of similar examples.

    The problem with frauds is that they often have long lives because we want to believe they are real and they make for far more interesting stories. The Gun Fight at the OK Coral, really wasnt that spectacular - but the hype and legends are. So we like to chose to believe them. They are also easier to understand.... and really easy to sell.

    Below is an article from Archaeology Magazine that presents some of the reasons why most experts have concluded the KRS is a fake. I will add this: I am not an archaeologist, but I am a geologist and have worked as one for nearly 40 years. I work for industry, agriculture and investors. My clients pay a lot of money for what I have to say and they do not tolerate wrong answers. That said, I sure as hell would never rely upon a “TV Personality” as a source - even if he has a BS in geology just like me.

    “Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves - Richard Feynman.
    Its also what we do to keep others from lying to us.

    https://archive.archaeology.org/0201/newsbriefs/runestone.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Geologist,

      First, the stone is not graywacke which is a sedimentary rock, it’s metagraywacke which is a metamorphic rock. They are totally different kinds of rocks and a PhD geologist should know better.

      Second, archaeologists are the last people whose opinions we should listen to for the simple reason they have nothing to contribute. They are not geologists, linguists, runologists, Old Swedish language experts, psychologists, historians or have the ability to understand esoteric knowledge. In short, they bring nothing to the discussion. That you think they do shows the fatal flaws in your argument defending them.

      To have an informed opinion you need to bring factual evidence to support it. Over the decades, archaeologists (and every other detractor) have brought zero evidence except their skeptical beliefs. And how could they bring any evidence support their beliefs when there is none. As I have repeatedly said, this is because the factual evidence in multiple disciplines are consistent, and conclusive, the Kensington Rune Stone is authentic.

      Your faith in archaeologists is misplaced. You should look carefully at the facts that are well founded.

      As for the “AVM Stone” in the article you provided a link to, that hoax fell apart in the lab pretty quickly, and in fact, provided geological evidence that supported the work of myself, and Professor Newton Winchell 90 years before me.

      I have challenged archaeologists, and other doubters, to debate the facts in a public forum numerous times and none have agreed to participate. That offer still stands, but they will never accept. They know when they look for evidence to support their hoax claims, there simply are no bullets in their gun.

      Delete
  9. I'm sure you've looked at the hooked X as a map? I think I got something for ya?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Finally got a chance to visit the Runestone Museum in Alexandria last week. The KRS certainly is striking when you see it in person. The surrounding display was also enjoyable. I was surprised to see they were trying to pass off an early 1900's tobacco cutter as a medieval halberd, but some of the other axe heads and the firesteel were pretty remarkable. What are your thoughts on the other artifacts displayed with the KRS?

    Sam T.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Scott, I hope you and your family find yourself healthy and well.

    If i may , i have a question. Is it true that I must pay money ( monthly membership ) to join the local Masonic lodge?

    If i provided you with my last name . would it be possible for you to determine if in my past there were any Masons related to me?

    I do have a copy of my family tree ( very extensive ) in gedcom format , traced back to England. Unfortunately the trail grows cold there about a generation before 1605.

    Thanks for taking a moment to reply.

    I'd really like to join our local lodge. If i went so far as to delve into the old books myself , would this prove beneficial in allowing me to become a member? Or at the very least allow me to understand the various lessons and teachings?

    My beliefs and those of what i do know about Freemasonry seem to align, as does my constant quest for knowledge and understanding.

    Take care Brother.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jamie,

      You do not have to pay a monthly fee, you pay annual dues to remain in good standing once you become a Freemason. Typically, you attend a monthly meeting and may have to pay a modest fee for dinner, but that's it.

      You can call your state's Grand Lodge and inquire about past family members who may have been Freemasons. I also know of a genealogist who could help you as well for a modest fee.

      As far as researching Freemasonry, you can certainly do that to get more acquainted. However, there is nothing else comparable to actually experiencing the degrees first-hand.

      Good luck and I hope to one day call you my Masonic brother...!

      Delete
  12. Deplorable academic work on this stone. Completely legit. As a Thirty year lab tech I can spot forgeries, the provenance alone speaks for itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown,

      One thing people rarely discuss is the provenance of the KRS discovery that even for it's time, was well documented. This fact alone is a fatal bullet to any hoax claims that amount to throwing crap against a wall to see if it sticks. The only people who see crap sticking are those who have already decided the stone is a hoax and look for anything to support their preconceived conclusion.

      Their misguided opinions are equivalent to the what they hoped would stick to the wall.

      Delete
  13. Scott,

    Was listening to a podcast you were on... you mentioned 'G' means 'Gaia' or 'Gaea'. My understanding of the deity is her place in developing the Aegean principalities from a cave in the northern Peloponnese. 'Mother to all nations'. What is your knowledge of this deity, or the qualities she possesses that makes her so important to the Masons?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Scott,

    Has it ever been determined where the 'Kensington' greywacke stone was quarried from or originated from? I consider myself a Greek historian from the mythological sense, all stories based on the Father being replaced by the Son, being the Goddess Gaea (33) the judge of when the Scion is to replace the Progenitor. The Father-Son loop that is created is repeated as this Son is replaced by his Son. This allows missing segments of history to be found using antecedent loops or subsequent loops. The Kensington Runestone provided for an exciting lead given it has two portals! The Plymouth Rock broke in two. One half taken inland. Leif Ericcson colonies are near Plymouth Rock, Leif Ericcson in Alexandria. Does the Kensington Runestone show any signs that it may have broken in two? Just a hunch, hoping your studies could tell me if it could lead to another connection or correlation. Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eirik,

      Yes, I published this in my first book. The Kensington inscription was carved into a tabular slab of Paleoproterozoic aged metagraywacke from the Thomson Formation near Duluth, Minnesota.

      I also published the fact the KRS was intentionally split to it's roughly 2:1 dimensions by the carver who carved the last three lines of the inscription, including the 1362 date, onto what I call the "Split Side."

      Delete
    2. Wow! I've never read the inscription in such a way without your reply! Forgive me if I get it wrong... but it appears the first part of the Runestone was written after a terrible episode near Duluth, at their camp. Then, they cut the slab out and traveled 14 days to Kensington to place the Runestone at the convergence of Nelson River portage and Superior portage. Totally makes sense now. Identical to story of Leif Ericcson. The writing is clearly made by Templar. Swedes were created in America with Indians, then shipped to Sweden by Templar. Olaf Ohman is a descendant of indigenous Americans without a doubt. OMG. Thanks Scott! Good luck giving it to the unscholarly scholars.

      Delete
  15. Eirik,

    I don't think that's quite right. I am certain the stone was split to it's final dimensions first and then the entire inscription was carved. The other point to remember is the inscription is largely allegorical. I would refer you to my previous blog post in July 2016, where I explain my discovery of the allegorical features imbedded within this brilliant inscription. https://scottwolteranswers.blogspot.com/2016/07/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mr. Wolter, I recently read a book that made me think of you. "The Zuni Enigma" by Nancy Yaw Davis. Are you familiar with this book?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tru,

      I have not read the book but it does sound intriguing. Care to share a synopsis?

      Delete
  17. I thought you'd never ask! The author is an anthropologist who posits the theory that a group of Japanese monks sailed from Japan in the 15th century, went to California, then moved inland and ended up in Zuni territory. Zuni is a language isolate, unlike any other in the Uto-Aztec language. Hundreds of words share a similarity with Japanese, there are cultural similarities and pictographs that are the same as Japanese symbols, which made me think of you. Other things she goes into great scientific detail beyond my ken. The book is 20-years old, so no DNA tests were done at that time. I can't find any references on the net saying any have been done since then. It adds one more piece of evidence of pre-Columbian contact with the new world.
    I found it intriguing.
    Ove everything you do. Keep it up.
    All the Best,
    Kirsten

    ReplyDelete
  18. My understanding is that the author of the article attempted to debate you here but you refused to post his comments. He has also offered to debate you at the local geological society meetings. If you don't trust archaeology when it comes to critical assessment of your claims what is the problem with a no holds barred debate on neutral ground in front if your peers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. C.L. Winship,

      Seriously? Have you not read my multiple responses to this issue? I have already posted his multiple comments as "Anonymous" on my latest blog post, which he admitted was him on a different social media platform.

      I am not going to debate a geologically incompetent, disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind against me personally and the Kensington Rune Stone. That is the problem.

      Delete
    2. C.L. Winship,

      I am not posting your most recent comment because it's drivel and you clearly can't figure it out. The horse is dead, get off!

      Delete
  19. By continuing to speak from his backside, your former employee is actually proving your case. Being fired and forcibly removed from his place of employment has clouded his judgment. He keeps preaching to anyone who will listen about inconsistencies in the inscription. The same inconsistencies not only prove the authenticity of the inscription, they indicate who really carved the stone. Vikings had NOTHING to do with it. Neither did Norway, Sweden, Denmark or any other Scandinavian or Norwegian country.

    Let him talk. His helping of crow is only getting bigger.

    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,

      You are correct about that pathetic idiot who can't get out of his own way. Actually, the Kensington party, which actually did include 8 Gotalanders, left Norway in 1358 knowing they would never return to Europe. In any case, they were indeed Christians. The questions is, what kind of Christians...?

      Delete
  20. "The questions is, what kind of Christians...?"

    Devout Christians associated with certain People claiming the English Crown. Have enough evidence for an indictment. Still seeking crucial evidence to secure a conviction.

    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,

      Are you talking about Evangelical Christians? I was talking about Gnostic Christians which is a completely different animal.

      Indictment? Conviction? For what offense?

      Delete
    2. Scott,

      I was speaking of the same Pythagorean Christian Gnostics. I felt you were implying Templars.

      Indictment and conviction are the labels I've applied to the levels of evidence. One can get an indictment and still not get a conviction. I feel there's enough evidence to get an indictment for the builder of the Baptistry and the people associated with the Kensington Runestone. Like a defense lawyer, any skeptic or blogger could tear apart the evidence and create other plausible narratives to create doubt. I believe there needs to be more concrete proof to get a conviction beyond any shadow of doubt. The evidence as it stands is circumstantial at best.

      Anthony



      Delete
    3. Anthony,

      We know who the Kensington party was, when they left Norway, and the probable name of the author of the KRS inscription. We also know when construction began on the Newport Tower and no, it wasn't constructed by John Dee... We have not published this information yet, but will be soon.

      While the Newport Tower could certainly have been used for rituals that incorporated water as well as many other Celtic and Christian rituals, it's primary function was as an extremely complex astronomical observatory.

      Delete
    4. Scott,

      I never said anything about John Dee. The construction of the Baptistry predates Dee by centuries. I have shared the identity of the likely builder in an Academia discussion. The case is circumstantial but all roads lead to one extended family.

      The Baptistry does indeed have complex built-in functions. This doesn't make it an observatory.

      The first coded word in the KRS inscription refers to the Baptistry. 8 GON Ter. Octagon Tower. The Baptistry was already in existence when the KRS was carved in 1362. The use of the Anglo-Saxon foot in the construction of the Baptistry dates it prior to 1305. Cartography pushes
      the construction date back even further. The same works of cartography you declared as "dubious" on Facebook.

      A lot of people are going to have to rethink or completely drop their pet theories. Especially quit looking for 10 dead men. The word is Ogdoad. This is a Pythagorean Christian Gnostic document. Likely the reason behind the single use of the crossed L Rune. Appears to be a combination of the E and L forming single use of the name EL. This would make the word SkELar. Which is either scaffold builders or scalers as in someone who scales fish.

      "We made camp with two scalers" makes sense with the further reference to working fish.

      If you're open to legitimate further discussion on the KRS inscription, a completely new blog post is warranted. The inscription itself proves the authenticity.

      Anthony

      Delete
    5. Anthony,

      I never said you thought John Dee was the builder, I was referring to Tower guardian and Dee fanatic Jim Egan.

      The solar, lunar, Venus and constellation astronomical alignments absolutely make it an observatory, to say nothing about the alignment to the KRS directly connect it only to the ideological descendants to the Templars and the Scottish nobility. The twin flue fireplace architecture is only found in the Scottish Isles.

      The KRS was carved in 1362, the astronomical alignments for the tower were laid out prior to construction beginning in 1368, but I digress.

      The translation is "We had a camp near two ?????..." What many people believe is either an el/le bind rune doesn't work language-wise in the word and isn't a bind rune since there are several other instances where commonly used bind runes would apply. Therefore, the carver intentionally chose not to use them so as not to confuse the initiated who understood how to decipher the various coded information. The Dating, Grail, Dotted M/Virgo, Numerical (8, 10, 14 and 22) Confirmation, and the Cryptic Codes are not meant to be understood by the non-initiated. I'll leave it at that.

      I think we have a good thread going here. Please enlighten us as to what your "Ogdoad" theory is all about...

      Delete